ORDER 1. This MA has been preferred to challenge the award dated 5.7.2004 passed by Member Addition Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Multai, District Betul in MACC No.44/2003. Under this award, the claim petition of respondents No.1-5 was allowed both against appellant and respondents No.6-7 to pay under their joint and severe liability a compensation amount of Rs.5,46,000/- along with interest and cost. 2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Raju was working as driver in the construction company of the respondent No.7 and on 23.2.2002, he was crushed under the arm of JCB machine which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.6. A criminal case was registered against respondent No.6 and he was convicted also on account of his admission of guilt. Raju died of injuries sustained in the accident. It was claimed that he was a skilled worker earning Rs.44,000/- per month and a claim petition was filed under section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act for seeking a compensation amount of Rs.6,65,900/- 3. The learned Tribunal partially allowed the claim petition after holding the trial and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,46,000/- along with interest and cost. 4. Appellant/ Insurance company is aggrieved of said award on the ground that accident occurred when a road roller hit the deceased and since that road roller was not insured, JCB machine of the ownership of respondent No.7 Jawaharlal was falsely shown to be involved in the accident. It is further submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, hence, assessment of compensation should have been done in terms of that provision. Further, respondent No.6 Shiva was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, hence, there was a breach of insurance policy. It is also submitted that the income of the deceased was wrongly assessed by the Tribunal. A request is therefore made to allow the appeal. 5. None appeared on behalf of respondents to challenge this appeal. 6. The impugned award reveals that a finding was given by the Tribunal that deceased Raju died of injuries sustained during usage of JCB machine as he was crushed between that machine and the road roller. The Tribunal was of the opinion that at the time of accident, both JCB machine and the road roller were functional and in mobile condition. The impugned award reveals that a finding was given by the Tribunal that deceased Raju died of injuries sustained during usage of JCB machine as he was crushed between that machine and the road roller. The Tribunal was of the opinion that at the time of accident, both JCB machine and the road roller were functional and in mobile condition. Appellant-Insurance company has challenged this finding and for this reliance has been placed on FIR marked as (Ex.A.1) and the charge-sheet (Ex.D.2). Both these documents reflect that initially the police was informed that Raju while standing by the JCB machine to look after the ongoing work was run over by the road roller which was negligently started by Shiva and on account of this negligent act, Raju was crushed between the two vehicles. Incidentally, FIR Ex.A.1 is relied upon by the claimants/respondents No.1-5 and document of Ex.D.2 was relied upon owner of the vehicle/respondent No.7. Contradicting the facts mentioned in these two documents, both claimants and owner of vehicle have given the testimony that deceased Raju sustained fatal injuries when one of the arms of JCB machine accidently fell upon him. It is an established law that a party cannot make a claim against the documents relied upon by it to prove its case and any contrary stand taken by the party shall be considered as not proved. 7. The statements of claimants' witnesses have been considered. Neither of the two witnesses could state on oath that the accident was witnessed by them. Thus, whatever evidence was led by claimants either through oral testimony or documents was not supportive enough to give credibility to their narrative. Witness Ashok has been examined on behalf of respondent No.7, the owner, who claimed to be present at the time and site of accident, but his testimony does not explain why the FIR did not contain the facts narrated by him before the Tribunal. His set of story is inconsistent with the contents of the FIR and he has failed to give explanation for this substantial departure in facts. 8. His set of story is inconsistent with the contents of the FIR and he has failed to give explanation for this substantial departure in facts. 8. Summarizing the above facts and law, it is held that both claimants and owner of vehicle have given testimony against the facts mention in documents upon which they are placing reliance and these documents have categorically reflect that Raju did not die on account of any loose arm of JCB falling on him, but his death was the result of rash and negligent driving of road roller by Shiva. The question may arise what was the need to conceal the real facts from the Tribunal regarding the accident and the answer appears to lie in the fact that road roller was not insured while JCB machine was duly insured for third party accidental claim. It may also be noted here that owner of road roller and also of JCB machine was one and same person i.e. respondent No.7 Jawaharlal as reflected from the details given in supurdginama of Ex.P.9. It appears that common ownership of both the vehicles made it suitable for the parties to switch the offending vehicle involved in the accident so that liability may be fastened upon Insurance Company of JCB machine. 9. After taking aforesaid facts into consideration, this Court finds that the submissions made by the appellant/Insurance company about false involvement of JCB machine in the accident are credible and worthy of acceptance and respondents, by not choosing to contest the appeal, have manifested their stand. Consequently, this appeal is accepted and appellant/Insurance company is exonerated. 10. Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of. 11. Record be sent back to the Tribunal along with the copy of this order.